Business of the House

HC Deb 16 July 1998 vol 316 cc586-91 4.30 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor)

I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 20 JULY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill.

TUESDAY 21 JULY—Opposition Day (18th allotted day). Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on the relationship of Government to Parliament, followed by a debate on the European single currency. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

WEDNESDAY 22 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Government of Wales Bill.

Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.

THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 23 AND 24 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 27 JULY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.

TUESDAY 28 JULY—Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 pm.

WEDNESDAY 29 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.

Opposition Day (19th allotted day). The subjects for debate have yet to be decided and announced.

THURSDAY 30 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.

FRIDAY 31 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

I confirm that, subject to the progress of business, I expect the House to rise for the summer recess on Friday 31 July, and in the business statement next week I shall announce the return date in October.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for next week's business, and for an indication of the business for the following week.

The House expects a number of announcements in the next few days, so will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect, first, the statement on the transport White Paper and, secondly, that on local government finance? Will the right hon. Lady tell us also what other statements the Government plan to make before the recess? Will she ensure that Members whose constituencies are affected by the transport White Paper and the roads review are told about them before the media find out?

The right hon. Lady has made no provision to debate the Legg report into the Sandline affair, which I understand is now expected before the House rises. Does not that warrant a statement and an early debate, not least because the Foreign Secretary is reported to have told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning that he was certain that the report would support his claims of non-involvement? How can he make that assertion if the independent report is not available?

Last week, I asked the right hon. Lady when we might see the new guidelines on lobbying that the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to prepare. What is the position on those guidelines? Could we debate the Select Committee's report on London Underground, and could the House help the Deputy Prime Minister to find a workable way of privatising London Underground to replace the unworkable proposals on which he has embarked?

Finally, I refer the right hon. Lady to reports in today's newspapers that the Prime Minister has ordered Ministers to come up with policy announcements in August in an attempt to stop the government falling apart while he is on holiday. The reports state that Alastair Campbell has sent an edict to all departments telling them to save up stories for the 'silly season'. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there is no question of delaying announcements so that they can be made when the House is not sitting?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

A very good idea.

Mrs. Taylor

I must take issue with my hon. Friend on that point. We are not saving up announcements that should be made, or are ready to be made, in the House so that they can be delivered at another time, such as during the recess.

The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about certain statements that may be made while the House is sitting. I expect various statements to come before the House in the next two weeks. I hope that the statement on the transport White Paper can be delivered next week. It is pencilled in for Monday, but, as I have explained before, we make provisional arrangements that must sometimes be changed. That is why we do not often announce statements in advance. If specific hon. Members are concerned about any Government decisions—whether they are announced by statement or through written parliamentary questions—I think that it is important that Ministers ensure that those hon. Members who are most affected are informed directly of the decisions that have been made.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Legg report, and whether there would be time to debate it before the House rises. He will know from my announcement that it is very unlikely that there will be time for such a debate. We do not know precisely when the Legg report will be published. It is an independent inquiry, and it is anticipated that its report will be produced in the House's final week of sitting. I hope that there will be at least a statement to the House following the publication of that report.

The right hon. Gentleman inquired about lobbying guidelines. I do not think that I have anything to add at this stage to my comments last week. We inherited guidelines, and we are considering whether they need to be tightened and improved. The Prime Minister has made the arrangements clear, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the process should be rushed. It is important that we get any guidelines right.

On the right hon. Gentleman's point about London Underground, I reject completely his suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has come up with unworkable proposals. As a member of the previous Government, who let investment in the London underground decline so badly, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a cheek to ask that question.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's final point about policy announcements in August, although that suggestion might be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who thinks it is a good idea, I have received no such edict about withholding stories until August.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

In view of reports that the BBC wants to increase licence fees, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a statement is made to the House before the Government make any final decisions about the matter? It is also important to bear in mind the feelings of a large number—indeed, a majority—of Labour Back Benchers, leaving aside Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who have signed my early-day motion 1483.

[That this House calls on the Government to give sympathetic consideration to a concessionary television licence scheme for pensioners; and hopes that such a scheme can be brought in within the lifetime of this Parliament.]

In the light of the calls for restraint in public sector pay, is it not rather alarming that the press have reported today that the Director-General of the BBC, John Birt, has received a large pay increase, bringing his salary to nearly £390,000 a year? Many matters must be considered—quite apart from the agreement reached previously—before there is any question of increasing the licence fee again.

Mrs. Taylor

I think that my hon. Friend is requesting a debate on the licence fee rather than the other issues involved with it. The level of television licence fees for the years 1997–98 to 2001–2 is determined by a five-year formula, which takes into account the BBC's spending needs over the whole period. The Government have no plans to change that formula, so I think that it would be inappropriate to give priority to a debate of that nature at this stage.

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

I am sure that, especially as the Leader of the House comes to this session every week, she is well aware of the pressure from Back Benchers for increasing time for business, but may I draw her attention to the pressure from Ministers, who are becoming so frustrated by the lack of time in the House that they are absolutely forced to go to the media in default of coming to the Chamber? Will she give the House an assurance that some of the ideas that are being canvassed for improving the speed and effectiveness of the work of the House will see the light of day before the recess, and that, soon after the start of the autumn session, we shall have an opportunity to debate those matters and improve the accountability and effectiveness of that work?

Mrs. Taylor

Without accepting all the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, I hope that we shall be able to make further progress in modernising the workings of the House. He asked whether the next Committee report could be published before the recess. Ideally, I would like that to be the case, and I know that members of the Committee will work hard over the next few weeks, hopefully meeting whenever it is necessary, to try to make progress and agree a report. If that were to be possible, we might well be able to hold a further debate on modernisation in the spillover period, but I believe that some work remains to be done by the Committee before a report is ready.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

When may we debate the recent report by Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Society on the huge problem of the over-medication of the elderly, especially the evidence that one in five hospital admissions of elderly people results from the misuse of medicinal drugs, and the evidence from Glasgow and the north of England that in one case 54 per cent., and in another case 88 per. cent. of residents of care homes were being prescribed very powerful neuroleptic drugs inappropriately? A very effective review by the school of psychiatry in Manchester reduced the number of drugs used by the elderly, thereby greatly improving the quality of their life, extending their life expectancy and saving money for the health service. When shall we replicate those studies nationally?

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend will understand if I cannot promise him time in the near future for the debate he requests. I hope, however, that the reforms that the Secretary of State for Health announced only a short time ago in respect of Social Services and help for the elderly may assist with some of the problems that concern him. If my hon. Friend wants to pursue the matter further, he could apply for an Adjournment debate, but I do not think that there is a possibility of holding such a debate in Government time before the recess.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

I imagine that the Leader of the House will not yet have had an opportunity to read the Wyndham report, written by Tony Travers and published yesterday, on the economic impact of London's west end theatre, one of the great successes of my constituency, but may I hope that we might hold a debate upon it while it is still fresh in everyone's mind?

Mrs. Taylor

The right hon. Gentleman is right—I have not read the entire Wyndham report. However, I understand that the report reveals a vibrant industry and a British success story as far as London's west end theatres are concerned, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having them in his constituency. They are clearly very important to the British economy as well as to the British Tourist Authority. He too will understand why we cannot have a debate in Government time before the recess.

There is always the opportunity for an Adjournment debate. There is also the pre-recess three-hour Adjournment debate, which hon. Members find extremely useful for raising topics that they have not been able to weave into our parliamentary timetable on other occasions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Given the pressure on time, and parliamentary realities, would my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary, who will open tomorrow's debate on the expansion of NATO, which some of us, including ex-Senator Sam Nunn and other serious Americans, regard with foreboding and dismay, whether there could be a statement on the military position in Kosovo? May I hark back yet again and nag my right hon. Friend that the House of Commons should be consulted before there is any commitment to military action?

Mrs. Taylor

I am happy to bring my hon. Friend's comments to the Foreign Secretary's attention. I have previously said that we cannot give an absolute undertaking that an oral statement will be made before any decision to deploy troops, but I can confirm that, operational circumstances permitting, we would do so. I have said that on other occasions; I repeat it today, but I shall again remind the Foreign Secretary of my hon. Friend's concerns.

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)

Given hon. Members' intense interest in the statement earlier today by the Secretary of State for Health, and the understandable focus on the extra expenditure within the NHS, I express a hope that the right hon. Lady will share my concern that personal social services and the extra expenditure that was being targeted on that area were not adequately covered in questions on the statement.

I therefore wonder two things. First, will a statement be made before the recess on the White Paper on social services, to enable us to explore the Government's approach to social services in the medium to long term? Secondly, will there be an opportunity for a debate in Government time on personal social services? I understand that most of the debates on that subject in recent years have been Adjournment debates. Surely there should be time in which we might test the Government's views on that subject in Government time.

Mrs. Taylor

In Government time, we had a wide-ranging debate on the Health Service last week, when some of those issues were relevant. I cannot add anything to what I said about statements. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Liberals have an Opposition day next week; had they felt that that issue should have priority, it would have been open to them to choose that instead of the subjects that are on the Order Paper.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)

The right hon. Lady is aware, as I have raised the matter with her several times, that West Sussex county council has been obliged to go to the High Court to seek redress against an over-mighty and overbearing Executive which is seeking to place upon the people of West Sussex, and especially upon my constituents in Mid-Sussex, substantial numbers of extra new houses over and above that already budgeted for. Is she aware that the judge is now considering his view of the matter, the representations having been made?

Would the President be good enough to say whether she might be prepared, when the House returns, to grant time for a debate on the outcome of those deliberations, as they will fundamentally affect the planning law and legislation on the building of new houses throughout the country for the foreseeable future?

Mrs. Taylor

It is difficult enough at this stage to plan the next two weeks, and I cannot at the moment make any commitments such as those that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to make.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the regulations extending conditional fee arrangements will be debated in Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House, and when such debate will take place? The delay in introducing these proposals, ill thought out though they may be, is causing difficulties for the insurance market. Unless the extension of CFAs, as they are called, is underpinned by insurance, it simply will not happen.

Mrs. Taylor

There are no plans at the moment to debate those regulations on the Floor of the House. I cannot be specific about timing, but I shall ensure that, once a decision is taken, the hon. and learned Gentleman is informed.